New Power: Active Point Pool

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Power: Active Point Pool

 

The Pool itself.

Each power is independent with the exception of the Advantages/Limitations that specifically state otherwise.

 

OK, I remain confused. Do I need to have the advantage on the pool to be permitted to apply it to a power within the pool? If so, it seems very expensive to have an advantaged power in the pool. If not, what's the point of putting an advantage on the pool?

 

This is an interesting question.

 

What difference is there in play is there between powers in a Multipower and powers bought outside of the multipower, but the person plays the second set of powers as if they were in a multipower?

Is there actually any difference in play? No.

Do we even need limitations if the player plays to concept?

This is very interesting idea. Hmmm....

 

We don't need any mechanics whatsoever if the player plays to concept. The rules serve only to aply objective criteria to the otherwise subjective "let's pretend" game that role playing is. The rules give us a means of resolving differences in our pretends, however, such as "I shot you - fall down" vs "No you missed me".

 

Could you give me a specific build so I can better understand the concept?

 

Use any powered armor character already published. Use Defender. Then make his OIF IIF or OIHID instead (he put in ECM's to make it hard to remove). Then go back to OIF and make it Bulky (he's Victorian Steam Powered Defender).

[ghost-angel]

Re: New Power: Active Point Pool

 

If I get this right . . . I pay 1 for 1 for a Pool Of Active Points. This is is similar to a Multipower Pool or a Variable Power Pool.

 

Then I have to pay for each Power, thus bringing it closer to what looks like a Multipower Pool. But instead of a divisor for the cost they must take a Limitation instead, from -1/4 to -1. We'll just go with a nice even -1/2 Limitation.

 

So, essentially this construct is a replacement for Mulipower Pools for those who think those are too cheap for their effect.

 

It's reinventing a wheel.

[schir1964]

Re: New Power: Active Point Pool

 

OK' date=' I remain confused. Do I need to have the advantage on the pool to be permitted to apply it to a power within the pool? If so, it seems very expensive to have an advantaged power in the pool. If not, what's the point of putting an advantage on the pool?[/quote']

There are specific custom advantages/limitations that I listing that may only be applied to the pool (just like there are specific advantages/limitations that only apply to certain powers like Adjustment Powers).

 

Some of these Pool Advantages/Limitations by thier description affect powers that are linked to the pool. That seems clear enough, but when I get time, I'll separate them out and identify them as such to make things easier.

 

Use any powered armor character already published. Use Defender. Then make his OIF IIF or OIHID instead (he put in ECM's to make it hard to remove). Then go back to OIF and make it Bulky (he's Victorian Steam Powered Defender).

Defender's writeup is not in the Hero 5th Edition rulebook (in fact there isn't any character writeups at all in the core book). I'll have to find my Champions source book. I'm sure he's written up in that, but it'll have to wait till after the holidays.

 

Also, I finally got around to checking on the "Difficult To Dispel" advantage. It only applies to "Dispel" and "Suppress" specifically. However, the rules are identical to the rules concerning "Suppress" and "Difficult To Dispel" and that is what I used to create the custom modifier "Difficult To Adjust".

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: New Power: Active Point Pool

 

If I get this right . . . I pay 1 for 1 for a Pool Of Active Points. This is is similar to a Multipower Pool or a Variable Power Pool.

 

Then I have to pay for each Power, thus bringing it closer to what looks like a Multipower Pool. But instead of a divisor for the cost they must take a Limitation instead, from -1/4 to -1. We'll just go with a nice even -1/2 Limitation.

See this post

 

So, essentially this construct is a replacement for Mulipower Pools for those who think those are too cheap for their effect.

 

It's reinventing a wheel.

See this post

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: New Power: Active Point Pool

 

These limits on the pool make me edgy for abuse (especially since this does not require GM permission, below). As an example, if I have a 100 point pool, and link a 12d6 Energy Blast and a +20/+20 Force Field to it, then require 25 years (-7) to change the point allocation, it seems to cost:

 

- pool - 100/8 = 12

- EB - 60 x 1/2 = 40/8 = 5

- FF - 40 x 1/2 = 26/8 = 3

 

For a total of 20.

Aha! Figured out what you were thinking here.

Under no circumstances do any of the linked powers get the Advantages/Limitations that are on the Pool for calculation of costs.

 

Thus the proper calculation would be:

 

- pool - 100/8 = 12

- EB - 60 x 1/2 = 40

- FF - 40 x 1/2 = 26

 

For a total of 78.

 

Why do we need this option? I guess so some powers can use less pool than others. Can it be purchased multiple times?

Yes, some powers can use less pool than others. Yes, it can be purchased multiple times. I've corrected the post to make this more clear.

 

Does it cost out cheaper than just buying more points for the pool and making all powers more accessible? I'm speculating it does not.

Actually, it turns out to cost exactly the same. Therefore, I'm changing the value to +1/4 Per Halving. Thanks.

 

How do I know which limitation to use? Considering this is unique to the construct' date=' an explanation seems to be in order. Is it the Focus limitation (the battlesuit seems to match)? What if my pool has no focus?[/quote']

???

No. The Shared Limitation is similar to Linked in that the Pool Points must be accessible for the linked powers to work. This is an area where it is similar to a Multipower with Slots.

 

If the SFX is such that the Active Points Pool itself is a Focus, then you would apply the Focus to the Active Point Pool. I suppose there might be some odd SFX that would make sense to apply the Focus Limitation to the Pool itself, but nothing comes to mind.

 

That seems a pretty low limit when halving the points used throughout is a +1/2 advantage. Should there be gradations for less than doubling or more than doubling?

See previous change (not that it matters concerning the value).

 

What happens if I shut the power off and reactivate it? Does the doubling shut down

Yes. If it is activated again, then it starts building again from scratch. Also, as it consumes more and more of the Active Points, it will automatically shutdown other powers currently in use in the pool, starting with the power with the largest active points.

As far as having multiple powers that are culmulative and active simultaneously... I'm still thinking on different ways to handle that and be consistent.

 

If the former' date=' can I give it a fade rate over time?[/quote']

I suppose you could, but it wouldn't be worth much since you would only get a couple of steps up before the value becomes zero.

 

I'll have to think more on this to see if I can incorporate this into a more consistent and flexible modifer.

 

So if I buy +60 points in the pool (60 points) and a 60 point power Linked to it' date=' permanent (60 x 1/2 /2.5, being -1/2 for linked and -1 for permanent, =12), I've spent 72 points for a 60 point power that's more subject to negative adjustment than if I had simply purchased the 60 point power outside the pool. I don't like the math. Further, it can't be fixed, since it would always cost more to buy up the pool and buy the slot than to just buy the power.[/quote']

Good point. However, let's look at how the current system handles this same situation:

60 Point Power 1 [60 Points]

60 Point Power 2 (Linked to Power 1 -1/2) [40 Points]

 

You've just spent 100 Points for a 60 Point power that's more subject to negative adjustment than if it had simply been purchased without linked.

 

I also don't like the math of this, but I certainly like how my math works out better than the math above.

 

Agree? Disagree?

 

Similar to many house rules in that it seems not to be completely documented' date=' no one seems to know what purpose it serves, and the proponent (and the proponent alone) seems to believe the mechanics, the need and the benefits are crystal clear and should be accepted without question.[/quote']

I'm not forcing you or anyone else to post to this thread. I made it quite clear that what I posted was a draft, thus incomplete, so if you have a problem with that, don't post until the word "draft" is removed from the initial post.

 

I've have higher priorities on my time for now and I'll get back to this when I have nothing else to do and feel like it. Until then, I suggest you be patient, or not, but it won't change a thing whichever you decide to do.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: New Power: Active Point Pool

 

Update.

 

Changed the name of the Cumulative Limitation to Consuming.

Less confusing that way.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Power: Active Point Pool

 

Aha! Figured out what you were thinking here.

Under no circumstances do any of the linked powers get the Advantages/Limitations that are on the Pool for calculation of costs.

 

Thus the proper calculation would be:

 

- pool - 100/8 = 12

- EB - 60 x 1/2 = 40

- FF - 40 x 1/2 = 26

 

For a total of 78.

 

Which is still 22 points cheaper than having purchased the EB and the Force Field independent of one another. Consider the implications if I buy half a dozen powers in this fashion. I can then bump the pool another 25 points (cost: 6) and slap 25 Power Defense in as a power (cost: 17) and the "drain one/drain all" limitation bothers me a lot less.

 

Actually' date=' it turns out to cost exactly the same. Therefore, I'm changing the value to +1/4 Per Halving. Thanks. [/quote']

 

I'm unsure how this would work out in play. I perceive the possibility of abuse for simple point shaving purposes. But let's leave that as fine tuning.

 

???

No. The Shared Limitation is similar to Linked in that the Pool Points must be accessible for the linked powers to work. This is an area where it is similar to a Multipower with Slots.

 

So what determines how much the limitation will be? Your initial post shows it as between -1/4 and -1. What determines the actual level of the limitation?

 

Yes. If it is activated again' date=' then it starts building again from scratch.[/quote']

 

So as long as I begin my phase by switching the power off and on again, I never actually suffer from this limitation. It seems to me the actual limitation depends a lot on how long it takes to switch the pool points around.

 

Good point. However, let's look at how the current system handles this same situation:

60 Point Power 1 [60 Points]

60 Point Power 2 (Linked to Power 1 -1/2) [40 Points]

 

You've just spent 100 Points for a 60 Point power that's more subject to negative adjustment than if it had simply been purchased without linked.

 

I also don't like the math of this, but I certainly like how my math works out better than the math above.

 

Agree? Disagree?

 

In your example, I have two powers, the first which is not Linked and the second which is. I spent 40 points to add a second power. In the example I provided, the character has only a single power, plus the Pool which has no value without a power linked to it. Granted, that's like a one slot multipower, but who would buy a 10 slot multipower with one power to which the pool must always be allocated?

 

Under the example I provided, the character must ALWAYS have 60 pool points (for which he paid 60 points) allocated to the same power (which cost him another 12 points). He could have purchased the power directly for 60 points and achieved exactly the same result. He suffers no loss of utility for simply buying the power directly, outside the pool. In fact, he even benefits in that this power must now be Drained/Dispelled/Suppressed separately.

 

The character in your example has paid 60 points for the first power, and 40 points for a second power - he has saved 20 points on the second power by restrcting its utility.

 

I'm not forcing you or anyone else to post to this thread. I made it quite clear that what I posted was a draft' date=' thus incomplete, so if you have a problem with that, don't post until the word "draft" is removed from the initial post.[/quote']

 

To reiterate, if we don't know what you're trying to accomplish with the construct, it's pretty clear we can't evaluate whether the proposed construct accomplishes its goal. Put another way, if you don't know what the target it, you're very unlikely to hit it.

[schir1964]

Re: New Power: Active Point Pool

 

Which is still 22 points cheaper than having purchased the EB and the Force Field independent of one another. Consider the implications if I buy half a dozen powers in this fashion. I can then bump the pool another 25 points (cost: 6) and slap 25 Power Defense in as a power (cost: 17) and the "drain one/drain all" limitation bothers me a lot less.

I'll have to think about this for a while.

 

So what determines how much the limitation will be? Your initial post shows it as between -1/4 and -1. What determines the actual level of the limitation?

I had something in mind when I created the Shared limitation but didn't have time to break down the different levels. However, the details are excaping me at the moment. I'll try to remember.

 

So as long as I begin my phase by switching the power off and on again' date=' I never actually suffer from this limitation. It seems to me the actual limitation depends a lot on how long it takes to switch the pool points around.[/quote']

I agree with Steve Long on this issue. The Zero Phase activation rules were not intended to allow a character turn a power on/off ad infinitum with no time being taken up. In fact I believe the general rule is that you can activate/deactivate a power once a phase. Therefore, activating and deactivating a power in the same phase is not possible, so you couldn't just use it again next phase without it consuming more active points.

 

It should be obvious that this limitation may only be taken on powers that are constant/continous, otherwise they wouldn't be limiting as per the rules. And just like other constant powers, you can choose to activate them on one phase and deactivate them on the next phase at will. The limitation in question of course is a limitation on the "continous use" part of the power.

 

In your example' date=' I have two powers, the first which is not Linked and the second which is. I spent 40 points to add a second power. In the example I provided, the character has only a single power, plus the Pool which has no value without a power linked to it. Granted, that's like a one slot multipower, but who would buy a 10 slot multipower with one power to which the pool must always be allocated?[/quote']

To the first point: Just like the other Frameworks, the Pool itself has no value by itself, yet you still must pay points for them. No difference there.

To the second point: What you are really seem to be having a problem with is the "Permanent" limitation, or so it seems. If the SFX calls for the Permanent limitation, then use it, if it doesn't, then don't.

 

Under the example I provided' date=' the character must ALWAYS have 60 pool points (for which he paid 60 points) allocated to the same power (which cost him another 12 points). He could have purchased the power directly for 60 points and achieved exactly the same result. He suffers no loss of utility for simply buying the power directly, outside the pool. In fact, he even benefits in that this power must now be Drained/Dispelled/Suppressed separately.[/quote']

First point: The Active Point Pool can be used without

Ah, but now you are talking about the similarities it has to an Elemental Control. And with such a comparison, your logic fails, since if you have a power in an Elemental Control, if either gets drained, they both do. No difference here.

So perhaps you should calculate the costs based on the Elemental Control for this comparison instead and see how that comes out.

 

The character in your example has paid 60 points for the first power' date=' and 40 points for a second power - he has saved 20 points on the second power by restrcting its utility.[/quote']

And a power that is Shared with other powers likewise saves points for that power.

You seem to be seeing some difference here that I am not.

You seem to talking about some type of synergistic effect, but haven't really come out and said what that synergistic effect is. Unless you mean points in that it is too cheap or too expensive.

 

To reiterate' date=' if we don't know what you're trying to accomplish with the construct, it's pretty clear we can't evaluate whether the proposed construct accomplishes its goal. Put another way, if you don't know what the target it, you're very unlikely to hit it.[/quote']

I won't bother with actual link. See this post.

 

And you'll just have to wait until I have the time to fully flesh this out.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Power: Active Point Pool

 

To the second point: What you are really seem to be having a problem with is the "Permanent" limitation' date=' or so it seems. If the SFX calls for the Permanent limitation, then use it, if it doesn't, then don't.[/quote']

 

I am saying the Permanent limitation SERVES NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER. It will always be more effective to simply purchase the permanent power separate and apart from the pool itself.

 

First point: The Active Point Pool can be used without

 

Something's missing here so I'm not sure what your thought was. Let's look at two characters. One has a 40 point AP Pool, several powers which draw on that pool (each 40 AP or less) costing a total of 50 points, and a 60 point energy blast outside the pool, for which he paid the usual 60 point cost. Total cost: 150 points.

 

The second character hasa 100 point AP Pool, several powers which draw on that pool (each 40 AP or less) costing a total of 50 points, and a 60 point energy blast inside the pool with the Permanent limitation, costing 12 points. Total cost: 162 points.

 

The two characters are functionally identical. They can each use 40 points for an array of abilities from their pool. They each have a 60 point energy blast available at all times, and can't reallocate those points anywhere, for any purpose. But the one who put his permanent EB in the AP Pool pys extra points.

 

If your sfx call for you to have an EB thats always available, and whose points can never be reallocated to any other purpose, the only rational build is to buy the EB outside the framework. It makes no sense to buy it inside the framework. It will always cost more points for the exact same ability, even ignoring your framework's linkage for drains.

 

And a power that is Shared with other powers likewise saves points for that power.

 

The problem is that, under your model, points will commonly NOT be saved. Let us assume player A wants a choice of three 60 AP attacks, but limited to 60 AP used at any one time. He purchases a 60 point AP Pool (cost: 60 points) and three attacks (cost 40 points each) and pays a total of 180 points.

 

A second player wants the same three attacks, usable all at the same time. He buys them with no framework and pays the exact same 180 points.

 

Is that a reasonable result?

[schir1964]

Re: New Power: Active Point Pool

 

I am saying the Permanent limitation SERVES NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER. It will always be more effective to simply purchase the permanent power separate and apart from the pool itself.

Correct. The same thing can be said about the Linked limitation, but I don't see you throwing that limitation out of the book. Unless you think that "only to save points" is a good enough reason for having it.

 

Something's missing here so I'm not sure what your thought was...

I need more time to think on this and give my response.

 

The problem is that, under your model, points will commonly NOT be saved. Let us assume player A wants a choice of three 60 AP attacks, but limited to 60 AP used at any one time. He purchases a 60 point AP Pool (cost: 60 points) and three attacks (cost 40 points each) and pays a total of 180 points.

 

A second player wants the same three attacks, usable all at the same time. He buys them with no framework and pays the exact same 180 points.

 

Is that a reasonable result?

Good point.

 

So perhaps I need to change the cost of the Active Point Pool to make it more palatable. Perhaps 1 Point Per 2 Active Points in the Pool.

 

I've changed the original post to reflect this.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[ghost-angel]

Re: New Power: Active Point Pool

 

Correct. The same thing can be said about the Linked limitation' date=' but I don't see you throwing that limitation out of the book. Unless you think that "only to save points" is a good enough reason for having it.[/quote']

 

Actually - Linked does serve a purpose beyond points. Linked says You Can't Use Power Y Unless Power X Is Also Used.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Power: Active Point Pool

 

Actually - Linked does serve a purpose beyond points. Linked says You Can't Use Power Y Unless Power X Is Also Used.

 

No need for me to reply to Christopher's post as GA has my point exactly.

 

As for any changes to the cost, the new version has its own new problems.

 

If the AP Pool is 1 pt/2 points, I can now buy a 100 point pool for 50 points, assuming no limitations (and before any sehanigans with "slow to modify", for example). I can then buy a Permanent 12d6 EB for 60/2 = 30/ [1+1.5] = 12 and a Permanent +20/+20 Force Field for 40/2 = 20/[1+1.5] = 8. For a total of 70 points, I have a 12d6 EB and a 20/20 force field that would have cost 100 points to purchase outside the Pool structure.

 

Assuming they have common SFX, and thus could have been in an EC, I would have paid 20 for the EC + 20 for the Force Field + 40 for the EB = 80, so it's a 10 point discount. It's a 30 point discount if they weren't otherwise connected, but I do suffer from that "drain one, drain all" limitation, so they should cost less than 100.

 

It's at least getting closer, but if I buy all my powers as AP pool + Permanent slots, I'l save more than enough points to add a big permanent Power defense slot.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Power: Active Point Pool

 

A further thought.

 

It seems to me that "extra time to switch pool" ultimately becomes "points permanently allocated". To me, this means that the same mechanics should apply to both, with the highest "extra time" limit being 1/4 lower than "points can never be changed".

 

In my view, it should cost the same points to have a permanent power slot plus a sufficient pool to run it as it would cost to just buy the permanent power. Any pool which can be changed should cost more than simply having a single power. Although it is possible, in extreme cases, that rounding would reduce the cost to the same level as buying the single power, having a pool that can be reallocated between two or more powers should never cost less than buying one single power matching one of the pool slots directly.

[schir1964]

Re: New Power: Active Point Pool

 

Actually - Linked does serve a purpose beyond points. Linked says You Can't Use Power Y Unless Power X Is Also Used.

Actually - Shared does serve a purpose beyond points. Shared says You Can't Use Power Y Unless Framework X Is Also Used.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: New Power: Active Point Pool

 

If the AP Pool is 1 pt/2 points' date=' I can now buy a 100 point pool for 50 points, assuming no limitations (and before any sehanigans with "slow to modify", for example). I can then buy a Permanent 12d6 EB for 60/2 = 30/ [1+1.5'] = 12 and a Permanent +20/+20 Force Field for 40/2 = 20/[1+1.5] = 8. For a total of 70 points, I have a 12d6 EB and a 20/20 force field that would have cost 100 points to purchase outside the Pool structure.

I'll have to think about this. You may have a point about Permanent and Slow To Modify.

 

Assuming they have common SFX' date=' and thus could have been in an EC, I would have paid 20 for the EC + 20 for the Force Field + 40 for the EB = 80, so it's a 10 point discount. It's a 30 point discount if they weren't otherwise connected, but I do suffer from that "drain one, drain all" limitation, so they should cost less than 100.[/quote']

1) Active Point Pool powers don't have to be the same SFX. They can be, but they don't have to be. But I understand you using this for comparison sake. This was just for clarification.

2) True, an EC would save you more points... but you pay for those points via the restriction that if one power is Drain affected then all powers are Drain affected. This is not true with the Active Point Pool. If you Drain one of the "Shared Powers" the Pool and other Shared Powers are unaffected.

 

Therefore, an Active Point Pool shouldn't save you as many points as an EC in this comparison.

 

It's at least getting closer' date=' but if I buy all my powers as AP pool + Permanent slots, I'l save more than enough points to add a big permanent Power defense slot.[/quote']

As I said, you may have point about the Permanent and Slow To Modify modifers. I may have to get rid of them or merge them or do something.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Power: Active Point Pool

 

1) Active Point Pool powers don't have to be the same SFX. They can be, but they don't have to be. But I understand you using this for comparison sake. This was just for clarification.

2) True, an EC would save you more points... but you pay for those points via the restriction that if one power is Drain affected then all powers are Drain affected. This is not true with the Active Point Pool. If you Drain one of the "Shared Powers" the Pool and other Shared Powers are unaffected.

Therefore, an Active Point Pool shouldn't save you as many points as an EC in this comparison.

 

Presuming it can be justified by SFX, "Drain Active Point Pool" seems like a very effective power.

 

I remain unable to see any purpose to changing, however. The Active Point pool lacks the common SFX element of EC, so it doesn't adequately replace that framework. All abilities of the APP must be purchased individually, so it lacks the flexibility of the VPP. That just leaves it as a variant Multipower with a different costing structure. Given you initially touted this as a "more flexible" alternative to the existing frameworks, I'm not seeing a lot of enhanced flexibility as we analyze the construct.

[schir1964]

Re: New Power: Active Point Pool

 

Given you initially touted this as a "more flexible" alternative to the existing frameworks' date=' I'm not seeing a lot of enhanced flexibility as we analyze the construct.[/quote']

Please don't quote me out of context.

 

1) I said it was more flexible due to custom Advantages/Limitations on the Pool. And at the time of the post, it was true. As those Advantages/Limitations are removed, so does some of the flexiblity.

2) "See This Post": Means that this construct is not to replace any existing Framework, and never intended to be superior to any of the Frameworks, just an alternative. Why you continue to think I'm trying to convince you of this is beyond me.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Power: Active Point Pool

 

1) I said it was more flexible due to custom Advantages/Limitations on the Pool. And at the time of the post' date=' it was true. As those Advantages/Limitations are removed, so does some of the flexiblity.[/quote']

 

Still waiting for an example that shows off this enhanced flexibility and the benefit it gives to the game.

 

2) "See This Post": Means that this construct is not to replace any existing Framework' date=' and never intended to be superior to any of the Frameworks, just an alternative. Why you continue to think I'm trying to convince you of this is beyond me.[/quote']

 

Still waiting for an example of why this framework merits any consideration.

 

I'm assuming you perceive some benefit to this, and don't just derive some form of enjoyment coming up with variant rules for which you perceive no useful purpose. Perhaps my assumption is in error.

[schir1964]

Re: New Power: Active Point Pool

 

Still waiting for an example that shows off this enhanced flexibility and the benefit it gives to the game.

Can you increase the Effective Active Points of any Framework vs Adjustments Powers with a Standard Advantage for those frameworks?

Of course not.

The fact that the Active Point Pool has a Standard Advantage (since this is being created from scratch anyway) that allows this is flexiblity that the others don't have.

Now whether you view this as additional flexibility or not doesn't matter.

 

So I've already shown at least one example of what I view as additional flexiblity (for the Framework only as initially stated).

 

Now you can disagree all you want, but then you've fallen into the trap of thinking I'm trying to convince you that this aspect is more flexible. So you can continue to try to pick a fight which won't happen, or simply accept the fact that you disagree with me and move on to something more constructive.

 

Your comments on point comparisons has been very useful as they normally are, but to continue to try to force me to argue with you about the purpose of the construct will only waste your time and frustrate you. Simply because I won't try to convince you that it is more flexible. I've made my case for why I think it is more flexible. Go ahead and agree or disagree, just move on.

 

Still waiting for an example of why this framework merits any consideration.

See this post

Never said it merited any consideration.

 

I'm assuming you perceive some benefit to this' date=' and don't just derive some form of enjoyment coming up with variant rules for which you perceive no useful purpose. Perhaps my assumption is in error.[/quote']

Again, you assumed something that was never implied.

 

Obviously, you won't see any benefit since you generally will reject anything new if it can be done with existing mechanics regardless of the complexity of using the existing mechanics. I understand your viewpoint and respect it, just as I do Dust Raven's, but don't mistake that with agreeing with it or having the same viewpoint myself.

 

And I'm not going drop more important things in my life just to get further with a construct just because you don't see any benefit in it.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[ghost-angel]

Re: New Power: Active Point Pool

 

Here's the crux of the issue:

 

The book presents us with 3 Frameworks that nominally achieve the same base goal: They provide a cost savings for having a concept.

 

Each one does this in a completely different manner while still having the same base elements: Pool + Slots. Each one achieves the base goal plus a specific goal:

MP - Slots may be added for a small cost the maximum active number is equal to the pool points; two types of slots are used fixed that always take up X level of the Pool and unfixed that take up however much of the Pool they are currently utilizing.

EC - Slots are added at the same base cost as the Pool cost, active points is equal to or greater than the pool points. All slots may be used at once at any level desired.

VPP - Slots are added for no cost, no slots active points may exceed the pool points, the active number of slots is their real cost added up to equal or less than the pool points.

 

Now, you've introduced a new type of Framework.

 

Whose goal is to pool a number of Active Points that all slots may share.

But we've already got two Frameworks that do that: MP and VPP. The Pool is the Active Point Shared Limit.

 

So why is this alternative a better solution, a more interesting solution, a more unique solution or simply an easier solution?

 

Why would I want to playtest or use this alternative?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Power: Active Point Pool

 

Can you increase the Effective Active Points of any Framework vs Adjustments Powers with a Standard Advantage for those frameworks?

Of course not.

The fact that the Active Point Pool has a Standard Advantage (since this is being created from scratch anyway) that allows this is flexiblity that the others don't have.

Now whether you view this as additional flexibility or not doesn't matter.

 

So I've already shown at least one example of what I view as additional flexiblity (for the Framework only as initially stated).

 

I guess there's no way I could buy Damage Reduction to reduce the effects of adjustment powers by half (effectively doubling the power's active points) or by 75% (effectively quadrupling those active points) and put a limitation on it that only certain powers are affected by that Damage Reduction, allowing me to have certain powers be more resistant to adjustment powers than others are. If I could, it would certainly be far more complex than simply inventing a brand-new framework to achieve that flexibility.